The private / public gap -- NJ, NY and PA

[Mike Nuzzo]

The easiest way to play Forsgate when I used to be a north easterner was to play in the NJ father son tourney.
It was almost every other year that the alternate shot was played on the Banks course.
Isn't the private just soooo good in the metro area that it will take eons for public to catch up.

Here are the stats for the country from golfweek.

33% of the top 100 modern are public
7% of the top 100 classic are public

New Mexico -
9 of the top 10 in GD are public.

[Matt_Ward]

What really fascinates me about this discussion is that from my travels in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic there are few quality public courses with great green complexes. I'm not talking in regards to conditoning, but in the manner in which the complexes are built to accept / repel approaches and the way in which proper positoning off the tee is a must.

On another thread Mike Cirba mentioned the lack of creativiity of the greens at Pine Hill, the new TF design just outside Phillie in Camden County (NJ). The course is difficult because of surrounding vegetation, but I agree with Mike that the putting surfaces are merely cookie-cutter creations. Why did this happen from such a talented designer (allow me some latitude gentlemen!)?

Too many of today's new public courses in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic (minus a few such as P.B. Dye in Maryland which had some of its greens actually flattened -- a true pity I might add!) are really "dumbed-down." Do modern architects really enjoy creating these mundane courses that merit "dumb blonde" consideration because they lack any real inclusion of dynamic shotmaking / positioning? I mean al lot are in superb conditioning but where's the "juice" when you play the course.

GeoffreyC:

I agree with you that some of the old time munis do have a lot of character -- the sad part is that they have been permitted to decay over the course of time. Good examples that need a major overhaul -- Cobbs Creek (PA), Downing (NY), Francis Bryne (NJ), to name just three. American Golf could also be doing a better job with their efforts for the Big Apple layouts under their direction.

Anyone who has played many of the wonderful private courses in the three states I initially mentioned that are not exceptionally long or well known (i.e. WF, Oakmont, Baltusrol, Plainfield, GCGC, SH, et al) can list a number of courses where the putting surfaces are really well done. My visit this past October to Lehigh is just one example. Anyone who's played Alpine, the Tillie design in Demarest, NJ, will never forget the nature of their greens. Ditto Fenway, Fox Chapel, Five Farms, etc, etc.

I know that years ago in the classic age (1920's) the great designers went where the $$ was and private golf was the place to be. Many jurisdictions were lucky to have electricity and running water without thinking about public golf as an important item to build and maintain and even if they did who had the $$ to play and keep them up.

I urge many who are near New Jersey to visit The Knoll (Parsippany, NJ) -- it's being updated by George Bahto and has some of the most unique putting surfaces you will find. Credit goes to Charles "Steam-Shovel" Banks for his superior efforts. I just wish more modern architects would visit The Knoll and see how putting surfaces can be a major element in public golf. I can't wait to see the finished product after George is done.

The problem with upscale golf that's being built in the three states I mentioned is that the final product is not about golf it's about creating the illusion of quality design. It's about blah design -- just charge them big $$ so that people can ride around in carts and assume their playing quality golf. For all the $$ that's been expended just think why none of these states have more than 1-3 public courses within their respective top 25 layouts. For all that opened in the '90's what an incredible waste of $$ because such a golden opportunity was truly missed.

When I look at the rest of the country and see what public golf is doing in those locales (i.e. New Mexico, Wisconsin, Oregon, Michigan) the tri states of NY, NJ and CT are really in the minor leagues with the exception of a few courses already noted.

A pity.

SPDB:

Eric Bergstol does good work and his efforts at Pine Barrens is very good -- I just don't think it's as high as GD placed it among NJ's best courses.

Watch for another Bergstol course this year called Brandon Woods near Poughkeepsie. I played it last year in its early infancy and it's very good and will compete for its share of players. Also, Eric has a relationship with Archie Struthers at Twisted Dune and the possibilities for that course to be high on the radar screen are clearly there. It's a course of distinction because of the vision of Archie in not producing your usual pro forma Atlantic City / South Jersey course.

As far as the Bayonne course is concerned you are looking at no less than 2-3 years before its opening from the sources I know. There is still plenty to do but from what I've been told the layout will not be some executive sport layout with little challenge.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

Matt,

Re: Pittsburgh area.  The only redeming quality Quicksilver ever had going for it was the aura of the Seniors when they were out there.  There were just too many bizzare holes.  And since the Seniors left the conditioning has been aweful at times.

As far as Olde Stonewall goes.  It is georgeous, has some pretty views, and some of the most unique stonework you have ever seen (Quarried stones the sixe of a minivan stacked up in places).  But there are a couple of weak holes out there.

I did not get the chance to play Mystic Rock before I moved away, but have heard good things about it.  I would definitely say it is probably the best public in W.PA.

There is a sleeper that I think of as being PA, but technically is in Clymer, NY just over the border.  That is the Upper Course at Peak N' Peek Resort.  It was done probably 5-6 years ago and is routed along the top of a couple ridges on top of the ski hill.

What does anyone know about a course that was just being built when I moved out of Latrobe, PA called Tom's Run GC at Chestnut Ridge Resort?  Everyone was talking about this while they were building it as going to be one of the best in W.PA.  And I kind of forgot about it until this thread.  I have never been back since to get to see it.  What does anyone know?

[Mike_Cirba]

Hi fellas....my ears were ringing, so I thought I'd weigh in here.  

Why are so few public courses in the PA, NJ, NY area among the Top 25 in each state?  As someone who has played the majority of the public courses in eastern PA, eastern NY, and NJ, I think we need to look at history.

The fact, is, this is where the game began in this country.  And, whether we like it or not, it began under the auspices of private clubs.  There is such an incredible wealth of good to great public courses in the region, funded by such wealth, old and new, that there is almost no way that a public venue can effectively compete with the power of the private courses if you look at one on one rankings.

Rather than looking at public courses and asking whether the latest CCFAD in the Philly burbs can displace Merion, Huntingdon Valley, Rolling Green, Philly Cricket, Philly CC, Aronomink, Whitemarsh Valley, Philmont North, Manufacturers, Lulu (notice I'm staying within a 20 mile radius, never mind the entire state), I think we should be asking whether public courses are being built that are fun, affordable, interesting, decently conditioned, reasonably strategic, and conducive to elevating the growth of the game.  

I think the report card on that measurement is slightly better than it was a decade ago.  Some very decent courses have been built to fill those requirements by architects such as Jim Blaukovitch, Mark Mungeam, David Horn, and Jim Thompson.  Personally, I LOVE everytime a new course is opened to the public for $40 or less, and don't believe that those efforts should be evaluated against the best courses in the game.  These courses are the building blocks for the future growth of the game.

Looking at other states is not a valid comparison.  Yes, probably there is much more undeveloped, solid golf land to create hidden treasure in places like New Mexico, Nebraska, and other rural states where land is cheaper and there is not already the stunning, insurmountable number of excellent private venues that new courses are weighed against.  

Still, public golf is pretty healthy around here, I can assure you.  I think Tom Huckaby would agree with me that our round at Donald Ross's Jeffersonville for $14 would be a minor miracle in most urban areas of the country.

[Matt_Ward]

MikleC:

Have to take issue with you.

Superior public golf that ofers quality design, is affordable and can compete with private counterparts does exist -- it just doesn't exist to the same level in the tri-states of PA, NY and NJ.

Mike, I am well aware of the genesis of how the old time designers came to design private courses. Why do modern designers have a consistent habit in "dumbing down" public design. I'm not advocating 75 plus course rating and slopes in excess of 140 but enough of the cookie-cutter let's-run-around 18 hole designs you see today.

Plenty of $$ was available in the 90's and what do you have to show for it. Heck, many of the courses built are weak on design and STILL cost a small fortune to play. Do all public courses have to feature cookoe-cutter putting greens. Has anyone ever visited just one of the better private courses and studied their green shapes?

Mike, like you, I've seen plenty in my own backyard area and have visited a good number of available courses in the region. It amazes me how quality public golf does exist in OTHER areas of the country. Yes, the bar is very high in the northeast, but "dumbing down" courses is not the answer.

P.S. For what it's worth I do like a number of recent openings that have something to offer (i.e. Gil Hanse's effort at Tallgrass (NY), Mark Mungeam's effort at High Bridge Hills (NJ), are two that come quickly to mind. But, minus one or two exceptions, not any of the public courses can sniff the better private courses. It still amazes me given the resources, $$ and talent that exists for that to still to be true. The best way to explain public golf in the region is to call it the Grand Canyon -- because that's how wide the gulf is between top quality public and private, again minus a few exceptions.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Why do designers "dumb down" the public courses they design? Probably because they really don't care and the developers probably don't either.

As for the public golfer--probably the vast majority of the them anyway--they probably don't care either, or much more likely, they probably just don't know any better.

You should realize how unusual people like you and Mike Cirba probably are in what you're looking for and hoping for. If public golfers demanded what you two are looking for in even minimally larger numbers the developers would probably think about giving it to them and they'd ask the designers to build them.

Architects like a Gil Hanse at Tallgrass want to build courses and greens that are more interesting--an owner would probably have to make a concerted effort to stop him from doing it--it's just in his heart, mind and soul!

[NAF]

I was very impressed by Van Kleek and Stiles' Split Rock...Hump/Bumps and elephants buried in the greens is how I will remember it.  We spent a lot of time chipping and pitching on wonderful 18th hole green complex as we waiting to tee off and it definitely passes B. Miller's smell test for fun if you can spend oodles of time having fun doing that.  What I really liked was a hole like #2 there where the tee plays downhill to a large cross bunker 350yds down the fairway (unfortunately it has lost some of its size)...Having a downhill lie you hit your approach with a long iron over the fairway bunker (not in play) to what looks like a flat green..Only I discovered this green had  a huge ridge running through it and given the pin placement I was on the wrong side and left with a very snake like putt..If this would have been blindfolded and just saw the green you definitely would have thought Raynor or MacDonald..

The other impressive thing about Split Rock were the par 3s which are all first class holes in need of restoration..Why someone doesn't take this course and put a first tee program in along with some sprinkling systems is beyond me..We saw on the 17th hole some horrible mounding going in which looked completely un-natural...

On Tallgrass, I have to agree with everything Anthony Nysse said..I really enjoyed my time out there and thought it had some of the best bunkering around.  I love the way Gil uses islands in his bunkers and the gnarly look they project..For my money it is much better than LI National...

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Appreciate your take but consider this.

If quality designs can be done in other states (i.e. Oregon, Michigan, New Mexico, Wisconsin, to name just four) why can't that happen in the tri-states I listed? How does one explain such exciting designs as Pacific Dunes, Paa Ko Ridge, Whistling Straits, to name just three highly successful designs. Is the public paying customers in these state any different than those from PA, NY and NJ?

Your premise about the public not caring is not actually completely true. You can certainly create interesting designs AND the public will seek them out (see states and courses cited above).

There are a few courses of note that clearly have taken on the challenge and will be major successes (Twisted Dune / NJ is just one example). My only wish is that developers and architects put forward efforts that can rival their private counterparts. So much $$ was spent creating plenty of courses that are at best mediocre and one would think that given the pedigree and quality of private layouts that already exist in the PA, NJ and NY area so much more could and should be done in the public arena.

P.S. I need to mention another NY State course that has potential to be a top 25 layout in the Empire State. Saratoga National, designed by Roger Rulewich and 30 minutes from Albany is a solid design that handled numerous wetland issues in a first rate manner.

[Patrick Hitt]

TPaul,
I recently took a short trip with a few guys that are much more interested in beer cart frequency than architectual design in AZ. We played Eagle Mountain, 2 Greyhawk courses, and the Talking Stick North. The informal poll on the way to the airport revealed that everyone enjoyed the Stick most of all. The flattest site with the least wow factor created the kind of playable interest that made the day fun without being brutal or mindless, even after 6 lites. They got excited by the options hole after hole. Why can't more of that interest be created for the public ? These guys have played some private courses around Chicago, and they love the character of the old greens - the slopes and rolls .  We want character, even the guys that don't know why.

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom P

Vis a vis GBI vs. the US, you have it all wrong.  One of the main reasons the fees are so low at places like RCD is BECAUSE they allow outside play.  If you really want to increase the mown areas at Gulph Mills from 35 to 55 acres without assessing the members, just open up the course to the punters form time to time and you'll be astonished how much cash will flow in.......

On another vein, how come the Boston area is so realtively well endowed with public Ross (and other lesser luminary) courses.  Does it say something of the different historical social structure of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Yeah, Tom.  Or just allow the GSK (old SmithKline Beecham) folks across the street to pay for use of the driving range during lunchtime, maybe some lessons from the pro, too?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

If you can show me land for northeast architects to build courses like Pacific Dunes and Whistling Straits in PA or NJ, then I'm all for it!

I DO understand your point, but take some solace that for every featureless green at Rulewich's Wild Turkey there is a wildly undulating one at Moran's Hawk Pointe.  

And, for every bland, dull-flat green at Fazio's Pine Hill, there is a beautifully subtle, but effectively challenging one at Struther's Twisted Dune.  

I'd love for you to get an interview with Tom Fazio this year for your magazine.  I'd be happy to submit a half dozen questions for your consideration, starting with,

"What green at Pine Hill is your favorite, and could you describe it for me?"  

[SPDB]

shivas - an "8" next to a closed parentheses ")" mark will produce the sunglass wearing smiley face. witness:  (

[Matt_Ward]

MikeC:

It's not the type of terrain that I was looking to compare because you can't mention northeast locations with the ones I listed, however, my point is about imbuing courses with a strategic purpose. Why isn't that done? Why do most public courses, particularly the newer ones, look like they were bottled from the same mix we've seen before? Do you ever see a public course with bunkers in the middle of the fairways like the 3rd at Pac Dunes? Do you ever see angled and offset fairways instead of the straight razor look you normally get? What about closely crop grass near elevated greens to make chipping and pitching more demanding from a mental and physical side?

Mike, you mention Wild Turkey and Hawk Pointe from NJ. Both are OK to good courses, but neither would get any real consideration for a top 25 overall ranking in the Garden State. Both might make a top ten public though but it's not automatic given the nature of other courses in the state.

And, before I forget, how can such superb land in the Poconos be wasted on such utterly forgettable public designs The only one that I know of of some quality is the Nicklaus course near Shawnee.

It amazes me the great disparity of private v public in the northeast minus a very few exceptions. I concede that top quality land is not easy to find and the approval process has a more hoops than you find at the Westminister dog show, but if other states are leap years beyond the tri-states I cited I have to wonder what is going on? What is so difficult in designing a strategic course that keeps you guessing instead of ther pro forma "been there, seen it" types you constantly face.

shivas:

Great post on what goes on in Chicago. You could have a real good debate on which side of the aisle is better -- especially if forced to compare the top ten from one side versus that of the other. In NJ it would be an absolute blow out in favor of the privates -- ditto NY and Pennsy and throw in Connecticut as well.

[Paul Richards]

shivas:

interesting take on comparing Chicago public vs. private.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

You seem puzzled that so many architects "dumb down" public courses, wishing, like I do, that the golf industry could build more courses like Pacific Dunes.

Much as I hate to say it, I wonder if we are all being a little elistest when we talk about this subject.

While I love visiting great courses, the most impressive golf experience I've had in years was visiting a bad course.  No, I should say an awful course.  A totally flat piece of land with no discernable features whatsoever.  Not a single good green or bunker.  No fun holes with interesting strategy.  No redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Guess what?

The place is packed and people love it.  Go into the 19th hole and you will find golfers enjoying themselves far more than I've ever seen at Pine Valley.

Maybe we just have too much of an artist's view and not enough understanding of the golf business.

But, I have no plans to change and wouldn't expect anyone here to do so either.

[Matt_Ward]

TimW:

I understand what you say, but using your line of reasoning do big crowds at McDonald's mean they're serving cuisine? People who limit themselves will always get what they want --that's not the issue on this thread. My point is not about why he have "less" but why we can't have "more" of real quality like so many other states that have built superior public courses in the last decade or so (see my partial listing of states cited).

I'm not advocating an elitist position -- heck, I grew up on a course where grass grew by accident not by design. I don't expect the old line muni's to be anything more than what many of them are today.

But, what about the course construction boom that took place in the 90's? In the Northeast you've got plenty of high-priced layouts sadly lacking in any real creative vision. And, again, I'm not advocating that all of these new fangled courses be some monster type course with 75 plus course ratings and higher than 140 slopes. But, can we get a little more design smarts

How these designers / developers can build in the tri-state area I mentioned and not use some of the great twists and design schemes located on nearby private clubs just amazes me. Is it too much trouble to stop by and see what a Plainfield looks like or a GCGC if you're on Long Island?

FYI -- Nearly every public course in the greater NY metro area (as well as just about any large metro area in the USA) experiences crowds because people want to play -- naturally, you get a spill over of people at nothing more than an assortment of overly priced rat trap type courses.

I don't expect each and every course to be Pacific Dunes -- that's not what I said. What I did say is that the creative and strategic vision you see with courses like Pac Dunes and others is missing from the plethora of courses opened in my area of the country with few exceptions (see Twisted Dune / NJ as one major exception). Hats off to Tom Doak in creating a course that plays just over 6,600 yards and has so much "strategic vision" that all types of players can enjoy it time after time.

Most of these super inflated fat cow super-inflated green-fee layouts are nothing more than your basic "grab your credit card" type course with little juice / beef to keep your attention beyond the first tee shot.

I just wonder if people are going to spend that much $$ and have to tap dance through plenty of legal and land planning hurdles why not create something that has some real quality to it? That's what I mean by a "dumbing-down" of design. The thinking is just give the public "more" without ever giving them something of quality.

Tim, I agree the stereotypical average golfer is happy because he / she has a cart and they grab their 64 ounce favorite brew and if they win a dollar nassau they're happy. But, there are plenty of people who didn't grow up thinking your average Sunday afternoon should be at Merion or Pine Valley and whether Biff is going to Harvard next Fall. There are plenty of astute golfers who want a golf course that really makes them think -- that calls on them to really play a variety of shots. That's the kind of crowd I hang with and believe me they love golf no less than the lucky stiff who's holing out putts at Winged Foot.

The tri-state region I cited does have plenty of upscale courses, but for all the $$ and time it took to produce these courses you see how little real detail and soul is in many of them. In most cases I would not give many of them anymore than a 2-3 on the Doak scale and that's being most charitiable.

I guess the reason it becomes so easy to see such a glaring gap in my "neck of the woods" is because the disparity between the really good private clubs and the really good public ones is so wide with few exceptions to note.

Hope this helps ...

[Craig Rokke]

3/4 of the PA private courses were built when the architectural talent pool was its strongest. 3/4 of the PA public courses were built when the architectural talent pool was its weakest.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

This thread has intrigued me, for I grew up playing the munis in Westchester County (Maple Moor, Saxon Woods, Sprain Lake, etc.) in the shadows of Winged Foot, Westchester and Quaker Ridge.  The differential between the public/private layouts in that county has to be the widest in the nation.

Then I moved to Philly and found myself in the same situation.  Try comparing Valley Forge GC to Merion and you'll know what I mean.  Only the recent additions of Glen Mills, Tattersall and Hartefeld National raise the standards higher than NY.

Why the disparity?  First, these urban areas are old-time golf areas where the municipal courses were bulit 60-70 years ago (as opposed to the Southwest).  However, golf course maintenace was never a fiscal priority and as a result the conditioning suffered in these densely populated areas.

In addition, the land became so valuable that it just wasn't profitable to run a public golf course.  Many courses (including private ones) gave into the economic pressure and sold off the land for development.  The only courses that survived (with a few exceptions) were the municipal tracts.  These tended to be the least maintained, and attracted more rounds as other courses closed down while to popularity of golf skyrocketed.  I estimate that Maple Moor probably has 80,000-100,000 rounds played on it each year if you count the walk-ons that don't pay but sneak onto the course.  Somehow I don't think the course was designed for that volume of play, nor does it have the budget to keep the course in shape.

In regards to the courses built in the last 20 years, the focus has always been on the $$ generated by memberships, tee-times and housing developments rather than traditional golf course design.  I may be wrong, but very few of these designs probably used the best pieces of property for the course, but rather planned the course around the residential design or flashy marketing concepts.

The real problem is the level of cost associated with playing the high-end daily fees that have been mentioned in the area.  Many kids are first exposed to the game through public golf, and I wish there were more affordable options for them at good courses.  To play golf well you need to play a lot.  That is just not possible for most kids when even a decent course costs $40 for twilight.  Do I think it is possible for a kid playing Jeffersonville to learn the game as well as a kid playing Huntingdon Valley?  Yes, but not probable.

Look at the costs for these courses and you'll know why people like me drive to Bethpage and sleep in their car to play a US Open course for $39....

Hartfeld National, Tattersall, Pine Hill, Scotland Run, Centennial, Seaview, Sand Barrens, Great River, etc.

You'd be hard pressed to find a peak time round in there for under $100 dollars during the summer.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok Matt,

I think we should start identifying modern designs in the region that were built in the past 10 years or so, and name names.  

Otherwise, I think we're being much to general here, so I propose we name specifics.  Let's take 10 courses in each state built in the past 10 years, and give them each a Doak Scale ranking.

Let's get past the pretty cool munis that were built in the Golden Age that were architecturally valid, if poorly kept (i.e. Cobbs Creek, Francis Byrne, Split Rock, etc.) and focus on what seems to be the meat of your thread; why aren't the modern public courses built during this latest golf boom anywhere near the calibre of the best private courses.  

Of course, I might argue that the private courses built in the past 10 years suffer by comparison, as well.  Near me I have Commonwealth National, Blue Bell, Talamore,  Jericho National, and Lookaway to prove it.  On the plus side, we also have Stonewall and Inniscrone.

So, I would ask you to take the 10 best new public courses in each state, and give your Doak Scale ranking to each and I'll do the same shortly.  Let's see where the chips fall.  Whaddya think?  

[Matt_Ward]

MikeC:

Great idea.

I'll be putting together a listing today and hope to have it out later this afternoon.

The listing will feature the three states and apply some Doak type numbers to each. I will not include the most recent of additions (in the last year) because they may not have had full opportunity to mature from a turf standpoint.

I'll even expand to neighboring states (i.e. Maryland & Massachusetts) which have done much better than the tri-state region (PA, NJ & NY) in advancing public design.

Talk sooooon ...

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,

My guess is that if you sat down with the developers of those CCFADs that you think lack quality they would probably tell you they have provided quality.  They would probably also tell you that a very large percentage of their paying guests think so as well.  I doubt they think they are serving the finest French cuisine, but they would probably think you are unfair to use the McDonalds analogy.

Frankly, I'm not so worried that any market lacks $100 CCFADs that have what we would consider to be "quality".  Far more important is how much decent golf can be played for $25.  This is really where the tri-state area suffers badly in comparison to the Mid West.

I was thinking about that driving past Saxon Woods last week on the Hutchinson River Parkway.  Living in Westchester County, for instance, would not be very good if you didn't belong to a private club.  And. if I lived out on the Island, I'd probably get tired of sleeping at Bethpage.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

I will step off a cliff here, but I am more convinced of than ever of what I am about to say.  First, the mediocre designs that Matt Ward complains of, including my Hawk Pointe, may be due to a lack of talent on my part and other architects part.  I am not very talented, but I'll be dammed if I am a compromiser and dumb.  So, consider lackluster design possibly as a reflection of the architect's talent.  We try hard with what God gave us, but like Waylon said, God rest his soul, there is always one more way to do something and that is your way.  I do it my way with the meager talent I have.

My main concern is that Matt's concern for quality public courses, which he is correct in noting, is due also to management companies.  Management companies are not quality minded in the sense that most people here think of quality.  They beat down construction budgets, they beat down maintenance budgets, they beat down superintendents, and they turn out crap.  They save here and there and make the client think they are heros.  If architects can be cast at one end of the spectrum as spending too much money, these guys are at the complete opposite end.  To them, the golfing public is impressed by teenagers meeting us at our car and taking our bag, and we just pee all over ourselves if we can get a 50% discount on food for stopping by the snack barn at the turn.

You go to meetings where these guys are involved and it will turn your stomach.  A lot of them try to impress you with the number of PGA golf pros they have on staff, but these guys have forgotten the game, and they certainly do not remember the game I loved so dearly growing up.  The problem is they save all this money by cutting cutting cutting, and down the road the client is stuck with inferior infrastructure it costs twice as much to upgrade because conditions are so poor and can not be improved without upgrading.

Wow, there goes all those design commissions through management companies.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Here's another post that makes this site great.  Real architects in so many words telling the management companies they're clueless.  Of course, we've been lamenting these problems for quite a while, but to hear them straight from the horse's mouth?  Priceless.

[Matt_Ward]

TimW:

There isn't a developer that I know that doesn't think the facility they have created is the greatest thing to happen since slice bread. I get enough promos through the mail
that they give you the impression their facility is the
cradle of golf.

Many of these types are like the guys who have the extra $$ and decide to take on Broadway with some sort of mis-mash called a musical or play. The result? Usually a high-priced flop that fleeces the public.

Tim, you still don't get it. How can people who design in such a rich environment of quality design not incoporate many of these same items on these high-priced courses? I mean how much of an effort does it take to drive over to Plainfield or GCGC and see what they did?

I don't put much of the onus on architects because I'm sure many do really appreciate what the grand masters did with so many of the fine courses that exist in the metro NYC area and they would like to add these particular design qualities to their sites (see Kelly Blake Moran thread and my retort below).

The management companies are often run by bean counters who want to give the appearance of quality design, but often it's just window dressing to sell houses and all the other add-ons. I can only imagine the frustration of many an architect in dealing with these over-inflated ego types and the damage they inflict on top quality people (superintendents, etc.) who leave for other positions.

Kelly Blake Moran:

Hats off to you for your candor. I've heard plenty of things on GCA but nothing, that's right nothing, beats the up front honesty you outlined.

Many times management companies are only interested in promoting non-course related items that keep the customers coming. If that means creating inane waterfalls or having tube top bimbos serving drinks so much the better. There are facilities that really do believe if you have some armada of kids run around after you the whole day that is the reason why you will come back to that course. I know of several in NJ who follow this M.O.

These folks see golf as just a means to an end -- putting more dough in their hands. They usually don't know golf from volley ball. It's all about the show -- not the product.

I know many architects who have had to scale back their creative design juices because of "development companies" that really fail to see how quality design can ADD even more fanfare to their respective properties.

It's an utter shame and I salute you for being so clear and honest about what happens in many instances.

Golf in the metro NY area has such a rich pedigree -- it becomes so painfully obvious when you see a great many wonderful sites turned into some fast food production called a golf course. That's why I said there is such a "grand canyon" in NY, NJ and PA because the great designs of the past are so beyond what is produced among modern public courses today there, with few exceptions. Kelly's astute comments help explain a good part of this.